Finally the really important decision


This is the one that mattered. More so than overturning Roe or even Bruen

While the decision is based on the EPA’s overreach on green house gases, it is a dagger to the heart of the regulatory state. For example, the FDA’s presumption that in regulating drugs they could also dictate the practice of medicine is on the chopping block.

When Congress delegates powers to regulators, it will have to be specific about what can be done.  Regulators will not be able to simply assume new powers on their own.

SCOTUS may yet save Biden from himself, by taking away his ability to screw up.

59 thoughts on “Finally the really important decision

  1. I’m so excited those who got to live through the Pax Americana created by a strong regulatory state have made it so me and my family have to live through the second Gilded Age. Very cool, guys.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. If we had done that, Space-X would still be testing rockets. No private enterprise would touch what NASA accomplished. Like so many advances in science, taxpayers do the basic research and heavy lifting and then private enterprise steps in when the risks are much, much lower.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. None of these suits would be necessary if CONGRESS, as a whole, had not given too much power over to the Executive Branch.

    Both sides need to get their collective acts together and govern instead of forcing Presidents, regardless of party, to use a “phone and a pen.” – IMO


      1. Absolutely. Your favorite word of late is consensus. THere needs to be one in congress to handle these things to better the country ON THE WHOLE. Not just for the producers, but for the consumers and the citizens.

        Doing NOTHING is not an option; finding a balance is what needs to happen.


  3. Congress has definitely delegated way to much power to the presidency. Leaving regulatory details to the executive and you get either non-compliance or over-compliance based on political winds.

    We live in a nation of “edicts” by presidential fiat, not at all what the founders wanted after shedding a monarchy.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Some of the comments here seem to miss the significance of the ruling. At issue is whether a regulatory agency can use any and all means to achieve an approved regulatory result, or whether the agency can use only the means described in the enabling statute.

    If you like the EPA, this ruling should make you very happy. SCOTUS found that EPA must use only the means described in the legislation that created it. This is good for EPA lovers because it will prevent the EPA from turning into a tyrannical agency that people love to hate.


      1. FYI, it is not just in the US, nor are the price increases here the highest by a long shot.

        But, of course, the President will be blamed. All the oil here is not ours. It belongs to the multinationals who sell on the world market. So even if we demand more drilling, it will not stay here unless we nationalize the oil companies.

        Do we really want to go there now?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Missing the point again

          It is the policy of this administration to inflate the cost of fossil fuels to force people to adopt EV’s

          Up until now, the EPA has been able to do the dirty work, but this will force Democratic Congressional Reps to either abandon that policy or openly vote for it.

          This will be fun.


          1. Let me see if I understand.

            We don’t have an oil shortage. No lines, hoarding or closed stations. Yet prices are high.

            So we want oil companies to provide more fuel than we need in order to create a surplus to lower the prices at the pump. Profits will drop and everyone is happy?

            And we need to do this with US oil which belongs to the multinationals so that global fuel prices come down?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. That when supply is adequate, competition will bring prices down.

            Just as it always had. But now the supply is artificially restricted.

            BTW, Biden’s Dept of Interior just skipped the second court mandated lease sale in a row. Apparently the Rule of Law does not apply to them.


          3. Even if we forced the oil companies to increase production by 20%, a huge amount, it would make a tiny dent in the global demand of almost 78 million bbl/day.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. SCOTUS’s opinions at this point are nothing. THey are way too political in nature and not independent or following the Constitution.

      You are missing the big point that because Congress has become a backlog of staying in power or attempting to regain it, rather than legislating, they have forced the Executive Branch to act.


      1. No, the Executive Branch is not “forced” to violate the Constitution. Congress has been allowing it to do so to avoid having to vote on unpopular things.

        Now, the party of windmills and expensive energy will have to vote for that agenda, and the people will be watching. No more hiding behind the EPA.


        1. They are not violating the Constitution. (You want an example of that, watch the 1/6 hearings). THe Executive branch is taking action that the radical right wing justices on the Supreme Court don’t like because their GOP masters at Heritage and Federalist Society tell them what to do.

          And you seem to think it is only the climate agenda that is affected by Congressional inaction; immigration is another. I am sure there are more, but the GOP just wants to do anything that prevents giving Biden a “win”, even if it is good for the country as a whole.

          Windmills are NOT expensive; you fail to acknowledge the costs coming down in Green technologies. Maybe it is the GOP who needs to look at what is possible instead of just claiming Green energy is bad (for fossil fuel companies who fund their campaigns.)

          Considering they have zero national platform except to do what Mar-a-:ago Don tells them, I expect they won’t even attempt your magic word, consensus.


          1. I said that Congress needed to take back the authority it ceded to the Executive Branch/ Saying I am blinded by partisanship is nonsense when I acknowledged that.

            Just because I view Trump as a Constitutional destroyer does not mean it is partisan; that is the reality and the 1/6 HEarings are proving that every time they convene.


          2. “You should not use “reality” and “1/6 hearings” in the same sentence. They have no connection.”

            What makes you say that? And the fact that you don’t realize what has happened in the past several weeks tells me your accusations of my being blinded by partisanship are actually a truer reflection of yourself.


          3. The “committee” is resorting to hearsay witnesses effectively swearing to gossip that a rational person would reject out-of-hand.

            Now they are trying to subpoena an attorney just to have him refuse to answer when asked for clearly privileged information.

            It has become comical in a sad way.


          4. Wishing for that does not make it true. Even before Cassidy’s damning testimony, there is enough that has come out just for wire fraud against TFG and his cronies.

            And remember that the GOP blocked a non-partisan commission (9/11 style) and forced Pelosi to take the action that she did. If the information that has come out isn’t enough to convince you of the fraud hoisted on the American Public in pursuit of a coup, then there is no way to convince you otherwise.

            Mr. Smith called it a pre-ordained outcome having been written on 1/7 by Pelosi. The hearings thus far have definitely put that idea to bed.

            And there is no attorney-client privilege if criminal activity has occurred.


          5. Of course there is attorney client privilege for past criminal activity.

            Cassidy has not testified to anything, she has repeated gossip, except for when she lied about authoring a note.


          6. Mick Mulvaney isn’t questioning her. WHy are you?

            ANd when criminal activity is involved, a-c privilege can, and should be waived. But YOU only believe that should be the case when it is a political opposite of yourself.


          7. The magnetometers were not adequate to process the crowd. A large number of people were waiting to get in to the rally.

            And they didn’t shoot anyone.

            Nor was anyone arrested with a firearm.

            But what is wrong with Trump trusting the Americans there at the rally?


          8. No one arrested because they didn’t attempt to go through the magnetometers. Good thing too. THe possibility of a bloodbath at the Capitol would have been real.


          9. “Pure Speculation.”

            You’re the expert on that.

            And that policeman was doing his job. If the rioter who was attempting to enter the House Chamber at the head of a riotous mob were Black, you would be blaming her. You’ve done it before and you will do it again. You cannot deny history. Even though you often attempt to.


          10. First of all, the secret service frowns on weapons. Lots were confiscated so many did not want to go through and lose their knives, bear spray, spears, clubs and guns.

            Has the secret service ever trusted people getting near their charges with weapons? Americans couldn’t even attend an NRA convention armed because the president was there. We’re those not Americans also?

            Tens of thousands of random people and you expect them to all be Trump fans. Your side said it was all Antifa, so why trust the crowd?

            Trump knew they were armed and knew they had plans to use them. He said they were not there to harm him. But Congress…?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. I didn’t say Trump was being wise, just that he was confident he would be OK.

            That’s not the same as wanting them armed to charge the Capitol


          12. THen someone can be charged with perjury.

            I find it interesting that you and the right wing glitterati are picking one part of the story and not questioning ANYTHING else she said.

            But then again none of you believed Trump EVER lied.


          13. RE: “THe Executive branch is taking action that the radical right wing justices on the Supreme Court don’t like because their GOP masters at Heritage and Federalist Society tell them what to do.”

            Please take some time to read through the opinion SCOTUS issued, because you have it all wrong in your imagination.

            The EPA had a scheme whereby it could force an electricity producer to reduce emmissions by shifting some of its generation from dirty fuels to clean fuels. SCOTUS found this scheme exceeded EPA’s authority because the relevant statutes only allowed EPA to require technology upgrades to dirty-fuel generators.

            To the extent the Biden administration pushed for the illegal scheme, this was just another case of our government behaving lawlessly.

            The political motives you ascribe to the GOP are absolutely irrelevant.


          14. Political motives are NEVER irrelevant. If the Courts make up were reversed and the liberal justices decided the opposite of the actual court today, you would be screaming bloody murder.

            …”the relevant statutes only allowed EPA to require technology upgrades to dirty-fuel generators.”

            Converting generators from dirty fuels to clean fuels IS a technological upgrade, in line with the EPA’s mandate. To say otherwise is ignorance or blatant idiocy. This decision is politically motivated in that is an effort to protect the coal companies who assist in funding politicians to protect them from going the way of the dinosaurs.

            And it is not my imagination that the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation has done everything in their capabilities, in cahoots with Mitch McConnell, to stack the Supreme Court with HYPER-conservative justices. McConnell stole two of the last three seats during Trump’s administration. Neither Gorsuch (The people should have a voice), nor Coney-Barrett (we have a Constitutional duty to fill this seat before the election) should be on the court, except for the political maneuvering and outright hypocrisy and unconstitutional actions by Mitch McConnell.


          15. So, the ability to read the plain text of the Constitution and existing law is now HYPER-conservative?

            I guess when you’ve become accustomed to one-man rule by phone and pen that makes sense.


          16. It is the same accusations that have been made by the right concerning liberal justices. Those that believe in the idea of a living breathing document; not ultra-conservatives who have dreams of dragging this country back to the 19th century.

            The plain text of the Constitution is being INTERPRETED by hyper-partisan justices. Originalism is not truly possible because NONE of them (or us) was there.


          17. RE: “Converting generators from dirty fuels to clean fuels IS a technological upgrade, in line with the EPA’s mandate.”

            No, it isn’t and that’s why your commentary on this topic is off base. Read the opinion; there’s a link in the article Dr. Tabor posted.

            Congress never gave the EPA authority to force electricity producers to switch from dirty fuels to clean fuels. This was not a case of Congress giving the Executive too much power, but a case of Congress giving the EPA too little power and the Executive abusing it.


          18. How is changing from dirty to clean NOT, to anyone with a licj of common sense, not a technological upgrade?

            \And to call my commentary off-base is an attempt to delegitimize what I have to say. Instead of arguing it, you just say it is what it is because SCOTUS says so. Kind of like the GOP with TFG.


          19. RE: “How is changing from dirty to clean NOT, to anyone with a licj of common sense, not a technological upgrade?”

            For the third time, read the opinion. That kind of “upgrade” is not allowed by the statute.

            RE: “And to call my commentary off-base is an attempt to delegitimize what I have to say.”

            Yes, it is, because you don’t know what you are talking about. I try to help you understand, but you are resistant.


          20. You make up crapola all of the time or use others made up crapola to justify your arguments. Don’t tell me I don’t know what I am talking about.

            Key word: OPINION. In the opinion of ROberts, the change to clean burning fuel is not a technological advancement. It is actually cheaper alternative for the companies than to try and control carbon emissions through engineering protocols. You would think they would take those actions to save money and control environmental damage without being regulated to doing it.

            Resistant to right wing, anti-regulation at all cost, screw the world, my way or the highway rhetoric? Yes, I am resistant to that.

            Get off your high horse and quit lying to yourself and others.


        2. RE: “Don’t tell me I don’t know what I am talking about.”

          You don’t know what you are talking about. You obviously haven’t read the SCOTUS opinion and you don’t understand the WSJ article. I’m done wrestling with your willful ignorance.


        3. If you think restoring the EPA’s regulation of power plant emissions by more specific authorities enacted by Congress will be unpopular you are really spending too much time gazing at your navel. The political problem will be for Republicans trying to block the protection of clean air and clean water.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with clean air or clean water.

            Regulation of real pollution has great support. I was in that movement that led to the EPA.


            But regulating CO2 as a pollutant was not in the EPA’s mandate. Our goal at the time was cleaning up power plants so they emitted only H2O and CO2.

            But bureaucracies always try to expand their powers.


          2. “CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with clean air or clean water.”

            I know that is your opinion. I invite you to investigate the meaning of the word “pollution.”

            And whatever your opinion, I stand by mine – Be careful what you wish for Republicans. The fact that – like abortion – protecting the environment has been forced back into the realm of politics will be awkward for those who want minority rule over majority opinion.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. By all means, campaign on $10 gasoline, doubling the price of electricity, unaffordable air travel and summer and winter brownouts in order to protect owners of waterfront property from having to pay for a sea wall 100 years in the future.

            See you in November.


          4. Your speculation is again on full display. No wonder you only see it in others.

            Let us now when the compound floods. Or you can’t fish in the Northwest River with your grandkids anymore because the water is so fouled it is unhealthy to be on it, let alone eat the fish harvested from it.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s